It was in need of an update, but why are they charging $2700 for it? That's more than a 70-200 VR II.

Battery grips... need I say more?

It seems the big boys have been going a bit coo-coo as of late, while the small fries have been kicking butt and taking names. Olympus, Fuji, Pentax, Pentax, Leica, and Sony are all innovating, Nikon and Canon, not so much. What's the deal?

There seems to be a lot of talk around about the price of this new camera. It does seem way out of line with what else is out there. WRT the lens, Nikon lenses are priced at a premium to others. And their accessories are obscene. Part of the reason I buy my lenses used and my accessories from 3rd parties.

Jonathan, I'm not happy with some of Nikon's prices either, but what Nikon's doing hardly can it be "price gouging" since you don't have to buy their stuff. Left-wing politicians call it "price gouging" when, for instance, there's a shortage of gasoline after a hurricane and they want to show their constituents they're "doing something" by preventing the normal price mechanism from rationing the limited supplies in a sensible way. One problem has been the huge increase in the value of the Yen, caused mostly by Ben Bernanky and buddies printing humongous piles of funny money right here in the good old U.S.A. Happily the Japanese are starting to crank up the presses for thier own Yen. Given time that may help solve the problem.

preventing the normal price mechanism from rationing the limited supplies in a sensible way.

There are other well-known sensible ways of rationing besides price when supply is inelastic, but from the general tenor of your post I can tell that you consider societal issues not worth considering, so never mind.

(That said, I do agree that Nikon should be free to charge whatever it wants for its accessories, and the market will take care of whether they are priced right.)

Nah. Leica took its cue from Rolex and stopped being a camera. Nowadays it's jewelry that also happens to make pictures, just like the Rolex that also happens to keep time.

These kinds of comments usually come from someone who cannot afford, and usually have no experience with a Leica. Are they overpriced or merely high-priced? Certainly overpriced to someone who doesn't understand or appreciate their impeccable workmanship or their designed-for-a-purpose concept carried to full flower in the new M. Do not fault the company that their product has been co-opted by the glitterati!

As for Rolex, your point is correct. Since the '70s, Rolex has been a second-class timepiece compared to Patek or Vacheron and, since the '90s, at least a half-dozen other watches. But Rolex does not bear comparison with Leica, who stands at the pinnacle of workmanship and quality in their field.

Hi Rip, Actually I owned three Leicas in the sixties and seventies, loved all three and did a bunch of professional work with them. But those were the days when Leicas still were the most usable cameras out there. I still can afford all the Leicas I want, but compared with the equipment available nowadays a Leica is a lot like a Model T. It just can't keep up with the competition. Leica still makes some of the best lenses in the world, and I have a Leica lens on my E-P1, but the M body is a rangefinder. Yes, it's a beautiful piece of machinery, mostly in an historical sense, but that's about all I can say for it.

Not really. Rolex is like the Ferrari of watches. If you wear one, you must be compensating for some 'other' inadequacy.

Jeez, how wrong can you be?

My Rolex was bought in '72 because I could afford it and, from my first look at one years before, I thought it the most beautiful piece of industrial design ever conceived; my personal inadequacies were compensated for by taking up photography as a youngster.

If you could advise me on how I might now afford a Ferrari (new, of course) please don't hesitate to pass on the info.

Well, Rob, when you start living in the 21st century rather than reveling in the alleged 'good ol' days' of the 60s and 70s, then it may be worthwhile having a conversation. You do know that Heath is no longer PM, right?

It seems like disquiet is led by a strange framing of the material being discussed.Somehow it always turns personal on a whim.I say tear the roof off the sucker...The truth is the culture war is over.An unhappy memory and best summed up by our current predicament.Blame it on politics all you want.America lost its way, Americans became disillusioned by the leadership it was losing,Americans battled back at the voter level.Abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, all on the horizon despite Rush, Hannity or rand paul...The culture wars are over...

Well, Rob, when you start living in the 21st century rather than reveling in the alleged 'good ol' days' of the 60s and 70s, then it may be worthwhile having a conversation. You do know that Heath is no longer PM, right?

What a sad little reply. I suppose when you have nothing relevant to say, then personal attacks are all that's left to play with, right?

I didn't know that as of the year 2000 Rolex no longer existed; I wonder who now uses the name to sponsor yachting, tennis and all those other televised sports... perhaps it's just reruns; yeah, that would fit your hypothesis.

But hey, don't let envy spoil your life: someone always has better toys; trust me, I discovered that years and years ago. No need for you to have the pain - just imagine I bore it for you. Altruism rules.

Have you noticed that our forum software is long overdue for an upgrade? Looks like it is misbehaving worse than usual as of lately; it stutters, it sputters, it mixes and matches, seemingly at random, quotes and related comments. Take, for instance, the latest example:

There are other well-known sensible ways of rationing besides price when supply is inelastic, but from the general tenor of your post I can tell that you consider societal issues not worth considering, so never mind.

Societal issues are exactly why price almost always is the best method of rationing when supply is inelastic. There's a hurricane. People evacuate and go looking for a motel. Because some grandstanding politician accused motels outside the damaged area of price gouging when they raised their prices and has set a legal limit on prices, family A gets there first and, since prices are low, takes three units so their two daughters can stay in one, their two sons can stay in another, and they can stay in the third. Along comes family B, a bit late because they had to rescue their kids. No motels are available, so they have to sleep in their car even though they could afford a motel perfectly well at the increased prices. That's the kind of, for some strange reason always unexpected, side effect usually produced by "other well-known sensible ways of rationing."